Whatever am I to do with you? You are not capable of making the distinction between merely disagreeing and actually making valid points. So you waste your time and mine with a long winded "more of the same." You made no new points here. You just responded to each point and said, in effect "I disagree." But you didn't say why Larry. You never say why.
It wasn't Kennedy's war as anyone familiar with the history of American involvement in Indo-China knows full well.
Please tell us the man who came down from outer space and comitted those troops.
Anyone who remembers the civil rights passions of the time knows that this too is complete bullshit.
No comment necessary. More of the same.
A gross, and grossly unfair, characterization of the situation. Kennedy was quite lucid, brilliant, and consistant.
This is document history. It has been reported as fact by his doctors in the New York Times. Is the New York Times a credible news source my liberal friend?
More unadulterated crap. We used the Mafia in WWII and our government retained ties with them - and used them - subsequently. Nor is there any - other than partisan - evidence that Kennedy was "quick on the draw" in comparison with other leaders.
The Kennedy family's ties go back way before WW II. Where do you think their money comes from?
So what should he have done? Allowed Khrushchev to place the missiles in Cuba?
But that's exactly what he did do Larry.
Hitchens has crawled into the toilet on this one.
So you're saying that Kennedy did not wire the Oval Office then? Or is the toilet referrence the most relevant observation you can come up with?
Yes it is somewhat contradictory. But Kennedy was searching for a way out of a quagmire that the Republicans had pushed him into.
So in your revisionist world the President got bullied into war? Pretty effective Commander In Chief that one.
I could continue...but you get the idea.
Please do. This is fun.
On VietNam.
Kennedy continued a policy begun under Truman. We (the U.S.) took the position that Indo-China was vital to our interests, that we could not let it fall to the Communists. At first that meant supporting the French, then it meant installing a government favorable to us. When that government began to fail we began supporting it militarily and financially. Hitchens gets his facts wrong on this one. Kennedy cannot be blamed or credited for this policy. The fact is it began failing almost from the start.
Dallas and the assassination.
The South was not friendly to Kennedy. Much of it was dangerous territory. Nonetheless American Presidents of the time simply did not have the security we now consider normal. They did not think it proper to ride around in bullet-proof vehicles in fear of the populace. You cannot imagine the changes that have taken place in American attitudes and practices as a result of the war in VietNam. How could you? You weren't there.
Drug addiction.
Kennedy had a lot of ailments and took a lot of drugs. Various "experts" have various opinions of their effect on him. I can tell you that he never showed any sign of distress or addiction in his public appearances (I personally watched him run and swim in the Pacific ocean from a distance of feet rather than yards and noticed nothing). Nor do most who knew him well say anything about debilitating effects on his mentality.
Mafia connections
Joseph Sr. was a brilliant guy who made money in a lot of ways; stock speculation, shipping, movie distribution, etc. He also seems to have engaged in illegal liquor running. But you believe that his connections to the Mafia were dominant. Scwartz and Kessler your sources?
Policy towards Russia.
Too complicated to summarize.
Bugging the Oval office
A misunderstanding here. I thought bugging the office to be quite reasonable. Therefore I thought Hutchins criticism to be a cheap shot and utterly meaningless.
VietNam again.
No not bullied. The policy he was following had been in place since Truman. It was bipartisan for the most part - except that the Republicans also wanted to blame the Democrats for losing China under Roosevelt. To deviate from it was dangerous; it invited an immediate accusation of being soft on communism or - even worse - of being a sympathizer. And, there was no clear alternative. Letting VietNam go communist was unthinkable. Committing massive ground troops to Asia was unthinkable. Using atomic weapons was unthinkable. So Kennedy did what was considered prudent; he escalated minimally. It wasn't enough - the government of South VietNam collapsed. How he would have responded isn't known.
Generally, you and Hitchens point to the less than stellar achievements of Kennedy - VietNam, Cuba, stalemate in Europe - and conclude he wasn't effective.
That's wrong. It doesn't capture the context or spirit of the times. Containment was our policy. Atomic war was a dreadful possibility just barely removed from reality. Ground war in Asia was to be avoided at all costs. The Russians seemed powerful and growing in strength. Kennedy did well, very well, in inspiring us, in giving us strength and pride. You can see the value of that when Reagan replaced Carter. Why can't you see it in Kennedy? Sure not everyone felt that way about him. Do you think love of Reagan was universal? You'll just have to take my word for it - Kennedy's spirit moved not just Americans but people the world over. Hitchens is flat out wrong in his assessment of Kennedy as fluff.